Huckabee and Obama Triumph in Iowa
 

Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us...4elect.html?hp


Distributions:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election...states/IA.html

Democrats: (100% reporting)

Barack Obama 940 37.6%
John Edwards 744 29.7%
Hillary Clinton 737 29.5%
Bill Richardson 53 2.1%
Joe Biden 23 0.9%
Others 3 0.1%
Chris Dodd 1 0.0%
Mike Gravel 0 0.0%
Dennis J. Kucinich 0 0.0%


Republicans: (93% reporting)

Mike Huckabee 38,656 34.4%
W. Mitt Romney 28,311 25.2%
Fred Thompson 15,044 13.4%
John McCain 14,759 13.1%
Ron Paul 11,216 10.0%
Rudy Giuliani 3,860 3.4%
Duncan Hunter 499 0.4%
Tom Tancredo 5 0.0%

Ron Paul did very well. He beat Rudy Giulani 3 to 1 and his numbers are growing. Thompson is dropping out and asking his few supporters to back McCain, but he will probably drop out too. Romney's numbers are dropping and Paul's are growing.

It was only a few short weeks ago that nobody even knew who Mike Huckabee was and now he won the Iowa Caucus. If he can do that, Ron Paul can certainly win in other states.

we just CAN'T have a president named Huckabee. we'll be laughingstocks.

We'd be much better off with a president named Ron Paul (except for his views on abortion and immigration)

Ron Paul will not win. I guarantee it.

I'm glad edwards beat hillary... even if only marginally

But this is probably the end of his campaign, judging by some very convincing dkos diaries I read the past few days. A first-place in Iowa would have meant HUGE funding and HUGE gains in all the polls - but anything else and his already lagging campaign faces much worse odds.
Hillary, on the other hand, is far from defeated... unfortunately.

From a different dkos story, on the other hand, from before the results started coming in, making predictions -

Of course he won't. He wants to actually change things. Those in charge would never allow him to be elected. Republicans and Democrats have worked a long time to keep those out who don't follow the program of violating the Constitution, attacking civil rights, stealing from Americans, etc.

I really don't want another strongly religious person as president. We don't need another president who thinks he is on a mission from God. Of all the Republicans, Huckabee is the very last one I would want as president.

I have a feeling that only the uber-conservative Republicans went to the caucuses, and the moderates stayed home, and that's how Huckabee won. Gotta hope some of the others pull ahead when the more populous states get their turn.

For the record, I did not caucus, nor did my husband. He was out of town, I did not plan on going. Neither of us would have chosen Huckabee, and he was the not the first choice of anyone we have spoken politics with recently. :2cents:

As long as Hitlery and Edwards loses I am good.

i hear only the best presidents come from arkansas. or at least that is what i've been reading for the last 7 years.

^^^ :lol2: ^^^

I don't know about the best. Clinton wasn't a great president, but he was a million times better than Bush. I'll take a tax & spend socialist over an illiterate, military deserting, recordsetting deficit spending, psycho who violates our civil rights, openly admits to treason (spying on Americans), tosses out habeus corpus, starts an unwinnable, unwarranted, unprovoked and unconstitutional war of aggression against a nation that never posed any harm to ours, who outs CIA operatives, refuses to disclose meetings with energy companies, has evidence of torture destroyed, etc...

That was very well written Radar - there is a lot more commonality here than you probably realized. Certainly more than I did.

Yeah, it kind of freaks me out when Radar goes and says something I agree with. It's just so... unexpected... :)


EDIT:"That is not true. I am no longer illiterate..." [/Mayor Quimby]

Just remember that Iowa is different from most primaries and elections in that the Democratic ballot is not secret. I thought the Republican wasn't, but it appears I am wrong about that.

This means that the Obama vote may be skewed by peer pressure but not the Republicans.

However, the caucuses require a large block of time so they may be skewed by people who could not take 2 or more hours off from work.

It could be interesting in that a number of Republicans are unhappy with the last President to play to the religious base and may not want a repeat performance. Bush and the Republicans promised 'family values', floated all kinds of Constitutional amendments that had no chance of succeeding, and basically raped and pillaged the economy and environment in order to cozy up to the business lobby. Huckabee talks like a populist, but he will be held to task by moderates who want to get past vague talk and hear specifics.

I don't think his campaign will survive the scrutiny.

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

I've got to do it once in awhile to keep you on your toes. Otherwise you wouldn't read anything I post. ;)

I think they messed those up because the articles states that about two or three times as many Democrats voted than Republican. I am assuming that you have to add two zeros to the end of each number on the Democratic side.

I thought the number of Democrats voting was 244,000, mostly college kids on winter break.

Thanks guys, now it makes sense. relatively ;)

Wouldn't that skew toward Clinton? She's the one with the machine behind her. I heard the Hillary excuse train rolling at work, but I'm guessing a lot of voters just don't want to hear that voice scolding them for the next 8 years. (If Bush was re-elected, I'm thinking they all will be barring economic collapse.)

I share the same feelings as you do. But i know one thing, he is the reason that I, at 25 years old, will be voting for the 1st time ever. I think that is the case for others as well.
Kinda like 'rock the vote' just with less p.diddy aka puffy aka puff daddy aka sean combs...etc....

I dunno, I think that is a toss up between Huckabee and Rudy "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" Giuliani.

Of course, if we don't elect Giuliani, we'll be attacked again.



Oh, and: 9/11!

The man seriously frightens me. I mean, he wants us to be frightened, he's counting on it, but for much different reasons than the reasons why he frightens me. Fear tactics, still riding 9/11...are people really going to fall for this tack, in the long run?

What I don't like about Giuliani is the fact that he will benefit off a terrorist attack. I mean, it seems like he is actually hoping for one to happen just to say "I told you so".

And yes, people do buy into his crap, which is why he is doing it, but I don't think that number is too large.

People can only live in fear, live in a heightened state of anxiety over their safety, for so long before they either stop believing it or emotionally burn out. I was really happy to hear Obama say in Iowa, "[I understand] that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century." Hearing a politician not push the "you're all going to DIE" sound bite button was refreshing.

A Giuliani presidency would turn us into a culture permanently entrenched in irrational fear. Nothing good can possibly come of that.

Obama's statement is much more reassuring than Edwards' gaffe "The war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan". I'd vote Giuliani over Edwards, and damn right I'd feel safer for it.

What I don't like about most Ds is the fact that they will benefit off the loss of the Iraq war. It doesn't seem like they are actually hoping for it... except when they say things like "the Iraq war is lost" and "the Iraq war is unwinnable" and "the surge will certainly fail" and etc.

Normally, I don't care about politics that much. Personally, I feel let down by any elected official, whether I voted for them or not. However, recent events (ie the ABC/facebook debate) have changed my mind for one reason - I HATE MITT ROMNEY!

He needs to keep his mouth shut. Everytime he opens his mouth, he makes himself look like an arrogant ass. He is not a likable person - not to say that you have to be likable to win office, but it certainly helps. Al Gore is more likable than Mitt Romney. I enjoy watching Mike Huckabee go after Romney because everytime Romney responds he just makes himself look like an utter jerk.

Don't even get me started on Mitt Romney being mormon!!!!

I am surprised (and glad) to see Hilary loosing steam. Makes me realize that my fellow citizens may not be as stupid as I think they are.

Go everyone but Mitt!

Not a surprise. If we were to lose, what person would say, "We just lost a war encouraged by a party that has been in political control for years under the policies they wrote, agreed upon, and implemented. You know what we need in the next election? More of the same!"

Why is it that so many people equate those who are critical of the war with people that "hope for loss"? What an utter disaster the US would be in for if we waged war and everyone agreed in lockstep that the policies and strategies being implemented could result in nothing less than a spectacular success and should not be questioned, picked apart, or criticized. Chopping it up into sound bites doesn't assist matters, either. Reid said "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week. ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically" because he not only recognizes that we can't just bomb a nation into a successful democracy, but that we must be cautious, especially given what history has taught us:

...and a lot of people are going to be angry, seeing that statements like this are almost entirely political in nature. Every terrorist attack, every step into and through this war, and every step out of this war is going to be political. But saying, "See what these idiots started? We're in deep shit because of their actions!" does not equal, "With the death of every US soldier, I can feel the might of my campaign growing! I'm really hoping for a big car bomb, tomorrow!"

So, anyways, how many political ads have you seen aired by the Ds that state another war is going to start if the GOP is elected, again? Now, how many ads have you seen for Rs that seem to indicate your children are going to be eaten by wolves/blown up by terrorists if you vote for the opposition?

Very well put, kitsune.

melidasaur, your post cracked me up. I was going to say something snarky some time ago about Mitt's gray sideburns (when the rest of his hair is still brown) then noticed the other night he'd shaved them off. Now, I know how gray hair can do that, and am not implying it was fake (well, it could have been) but regardless it looked stupid and smarmy. ;) Which, I suppose, is fitting.

You are such a sideburn-ist.:p

Dude.

Because so many of the fuckers wanted to cut funding for it in April this year.

In the bigger picture, that will turn out to have been an attempt to end the game after the Third Quarter so that it would end on a loss. A worst-case scenario in which Iraq would be left to the divide and to terrorism, and we would take 100% of the blame.

Was it just political? Or did they lose their crystal fortune-telling ball? Either way, we should not be impressed.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

US Casualties by month.

Apr-07: 104
May-07: 126
Jun-07: 101
Jul-07: 78
Aug-07: 84
Sep-07: 65
Oct-07: 38
Nov-07: 37
Dec-07: 23

I think Kitsune was pointing out intent.

Very few people see the fact that Guilani will benefit from a terrorist attack as anything but political gains. If Guliani was saying that because he actually thought the level of threat was real, it would be different.

In the War in Iraq, there is a split view on what is the "best" solution. Through your posts, it seems that you want to stay in Iraq because you think it is best for the Iraqi (and American (I don't know if that is what you believe so I'm separating it)) people. Other people think that pulling out of Iraq would be best for the Iraqi and American people. Others want to pull out of Iraq for political gain.

Both sides benefit from people dying but Kitsune is saying that those deaths in Iraq are not preventable and we have little control over them while Guilani's is based on a random event that can be prevented. The Dems want to prevent deaths by pulling out of the situation all together. Guilani wants to prevent deaths by giving him more control.

To put it differently, if the Dems purposely do not do what they say they are going to do, they will not benefit from it, but still remain neutral. If Guliani purposely does not do what he says he is going to do, he will benefit from it. If the Dems fail at doing their job, they remain neutral and Bush is still in the spotlight. If Guliani fails at his job, he benefits and is put in the spotlight.


To stray a bit, while I actually think that some, Hilary especially, are in the last category which is something I strongly disagree with, I still don't think it is as bad as what Guilani is doing in theory (I don't want numbers included in this). Looking at a pure American perspective, Guliani is using fear to gain political gain and get control while Hilary, assuming she was in the last category, is just riding public opinion. In other words, Guliani is trying to move America's perspective on terror so he can get support. Hilary is mostly just riding on public opinion even though she is trying to get people on the anti-war boat, it isn't nearly as close to what Guliani is doing.

I don't agree with either side but what Guliani is doing is much worse from my perspective.

:eek:

Bro. :p

I thought the intention was "we're not agreeing to let you throw more money at this problem in your attempt to fix it until you can show improvement, define an end game solution, and give us an estimate on when you're going to reach it", not "we're purposely withholding money so US troops can die in a sandy pit". The requirements seem pretty demanding, but remember that we are continually told that "this is for the people of Iraq" and the frustration comes when so many feel inclined to measure success not on the new structure of the Iraqi government being setup (hey, where'd all the Sunnis go?) or peace between the ethnic/religious groups that would prevent a future civil war (hey, where did all the Sunnis go?), but rather by the changing tally of US dead. It's 2008, how long has this shit been going on? Oh, right -- it will take as long as it takes. Can't rush it, can't ask for an end!

And yet, just like the "war on terrorism", of which I have been told Iraq is but an extension, no one can say when this is officially over or when we should leave, if ever, but you can bet we will continue throwing money and soldiers at the problem without asking questions because anyone that does wants us to lose the war, supports terrorists, and wants your children to be murdered by a suicide bomber. Which kind of gets back to the main topic at hand that I was trying to get at: both parties are assholes in that they gain from loss, but the "the other party wants us to lose and will let the enemy kill you -- only candidate x can save you from the imminent, Hollywood-style attacks coming from the dark, murderous shadows that originated in the middle east that are now swirling around your innocent home and family, 9/11" is really creepy, getting old, and does nothing but foster rifts in people and government.

[sar]Yeah, but one "dirty bomb" (whatever that really is) will ruin your whole day.[casm]

Has anyone actually used this line on you? Has anyone actually used this line on anyone?

I get your gist, but I think it's misplaced. In 2003 people were saying that it's tremendously unfair that Bush gets to create his image of a war-time President. I pointed out that it's all about the prosecution of that war. Now if Rudy wins and there is terrorist action -- he'd have approval ratings like Bush has now. Similarly, if Obama wins and doesn't produce change -- if Ron Paul wins and doesn't gut the Federal Government overnight -- deep, heartfelt campaign promises like these can be broken, but only if the general narrative changes.

As for the actual threat of foreign terrorism, it sounds as if it not a concern to you. This I would like to probe. Do you figure it's just not going to happen, that this was a one-off and simply unlikely to happen again, like a three-hundred-year volcano threat? Do you believe that the threat has actually been neutralized -- in which case, thank you George W Bush? Or do you come from the school of thought which says these things may become inevitable but that we can enter some sort of yoga calm where the national psyche just absorbs them and moves on about its day unfazed?

UG? I have heard terrorist sympathizer many times though.


It will be a threat for awhile, but how big of a threat? Is it something that we should be constantly worrying about and elect our president for the sole reason of defending ourselves against these "freedom hating" terrorists? I personally don't think so and I firmly believe, Al Qaeda backs me up on this, that the more we "fight terror" with irrational, obsessive, and greedy motives the more terrorists we will create.

Both the Washington Post and the WSJ have editorials this morning chiding the D field for being anti-surge.

WaPo
WSJ

Yea, then he had to turn around and eat his words. He even stated so...


Very few, and those that I have seen were by 527. No worse than the crap coming from Soro's shell orgainzations.

In all the round about ways of suggesting that questioning the way this war is run undermines it and helps the terrorists, yes. It has been a fairly common argument point over the years.

I think this is all true, to a degree. The democrats have a hard time, and will far into the future, of overcoming the perception that they would simply be inactive if the US experienced another terrorist attack on their watch while the GOP is seen as taking swift, immediate action. I think if Rudy were in office and something similar were to happen that his ratings would, in fact, go even higher. Stronger laws parallel to the PATRIOT Act would be on the books faster than you could snap your fingers, the people would take to the streets looking for blood, and the war drums would start beating all over again. Preventative measures are never held high in these instances -- we never hear about them, never care. Immediate, violent retribution? That's good TV. Rudy isn't promising to prevent anything in his ads -- he's saying he'll be ready to fight back when the next one happens. That's an interesting promise he's making: no prevention, just more war. That doesn't really appeal to my fears.

Its going to happen, no doubt. We will see more violence, both at home and abroad. What are you going to do about it? Live in constant fear every day and vote for every guy that promises knee-jerk, under-planned military responses to an organization that exists, thrives, and perpetuates entirely on the idea the the US is waging a holy war against their religion? The War on Terror is going to see the same conclusion as The War on Drugs in that, well, it isn't. There has been and will always be terror -- had the DHS threat meter existed before 9/11, the US would never have seen it any color below yellow. We cling to the idea and false hope that we'll see an end to this and our lives will return to the "normal", pre-9/11 days, and that it can be done by changing people's minds through war. It ain't going to happen.

So, how about we take a more balanced approach to this? Instead of more future Iraqs that cost (as of this post) $483,978,000,000, we spend some of that money on preventative measures at home (airport security, air marshals, bomb screening equipment, port security, law enforcement, etc) and, along the way, try to defeat the terrorists by, well, not being terrorized in our own homes and when we travel. We shouldn't try to enter some fictional yoga trance, but I don't think we should be wetting our pants every time we wake up to go to work. Do you really want to elect a candidate that is basing his platform on fear? Somehow, I don't think Rudy is going be effective at making people more relaxed. His commercials certainly don't appeal to that. I'm absolutely sick of it and I'm don't understand why those tactics still work on people all these years later. We are, as a society, burnt out on fear.

Jumpin Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Who is this asshole, and why are they having arguments with you in your head?

Is this coming from life with the retirees in FL (which may explain why you see the ad and I don't)?

Or is it a cartoon character of an ideological enemy you feel good ranting against?

So let me followup here, because I find contradictions. You believe that further terrorism is going to happen, no doubt, but people should not vote in fear, nor even in expectation of that fact?

It's going to happen no doubt, but Rudy's commercial is bad because it doesn't talk about prevention?

You want more spent on cops, airport security and air marshals, but not to feel more terrorized at home and in travel?

You don't like the things that got Bush a 90% approval rating because they were not oriented towards protection, but although you feel attacks are inevitable, there hasn't been another one yet?

To answer your question
Well there's only one who isn't, and I like him a lot, although I'll hold off any final decision until necessary.

But I think, in the long run, the only candidate who'll be effective at making people more relaxed, will be one more effective. If an empty suit (or, if you prefer, empty pant-suit) is in office, and there's an attack, followed by ham-handed moves that seem ineffective, the people will continue in fear.

I, think we should, uh-- wait, what?
Yes to spending more on domestic terror prevention.
No to, uh, spending money to feel more terrorized. (?)

I feel that, like achieving a zero crime rate in a city, that terrorism is impossible to completely stomp out, but that spending funds domestically has a higher chance of reducing it rather than, say, blowing half a trillion on invading a country and trying to force in a democracy. A lot of people say I don't see the larger plan in that, but that's a different discussion.

So with all the contradictions you see, I guess I'm not communicating my ideas effectively, be it the retirees that live in my state or the, um, asshole voice in my head. :yelsick:

I just find it unusual that some candidates would seem to prefer to use the issue of fear of terrorism in their platform and only seem to talk reactive measures in response to it and do not offer many suggestions on their plans for preventative efforts. Ads that show images of death, destruction, the smoking ruins of the world trade center, and war seem to counter what we should/want to be looking for right now, but I suppose that's the nature of appeal to raw emotion and, really, I guess it works. Plenty of people banded behind Rudy and donated a symbolic $9.11 to his campaign. Maybe his approach works.

We could also spend the money on education, social security, entertainment, and maybe even lowering taxes for the republicans too.

Hillary Clinton yesterday:

Clinton heightens terrorism rhetoric

Something that may interest you is that the only candidates getting any media time in Australia are Clinton and Obama. The rest might as well not exist. The media is fairly critical of Clinton but Obama can do no wrong.

I will be very surprised if Obama is not your next Pres. It is always the same. In the mainstream media, the only one we really hear much about is the one that wins.

This blogger agrees with you:

Why It’s Suddenly Okay For the World To Feel Good About the U.S. Again

Amazingly:

yep, that about sums it up.

There's one aspect of your #30, Kit, that sticks at me a little still, and I need to keep at it.

The correct position, at this time in history, would be to have been anti-Iraq-war. So credit those who were - for whatever reason.

But once you vote for it, you can criticize how it's being done, you can admit that it's a mistake... certainly. But to then try to end it prematurely? When it's the probably worst thing to do at that moment in time? When "the US broke it" is already how it plays in every nation in the world? When the man who wrote the book on anti-insurgency has just come in and changed the rules of engagement, and started what is surely the last gasp strategy politically speaking?

In terms of policy, clearly at this moment in history, the best position for any true leader would be ANTI-war, PRO-surge. That leader would have their crystal ball shined to a mirror glaze, to be able to interpret the signals of the crumbling CIA, to know who's lying, who's overstating, who is playing politics and who's not; and yet would see that, the damage having been done, there was still a way out of it...

And one must note, my crystal ball has been covered in a deep haze for a long time now, and I don't call on it any longer; the whole thing could turn back to shit tomorrow. But you don't need a crystal ball to look at where we are right now.

Anti-war, pro-surge. Is there any politician who fits this bill? I thought it was O at one point, but he has renounced surge support since then.

But pro-war, anti-surge... that seems to me to be the opposite. You'd expect the more politically-driven to fit that bill; change with the times, change with the polls. The ideologically-driven would be pro-pro, or anti-anti. History demanded anti-pro.